Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (0.28 seconds)
Saurabh Stone International, Vapi vs Department Of Income Tax cites

C.I.T vs N.C.Budharaja And Co on 7 September, 1993

Applying the above tests laid down by this Court in Budharaja's case (supra) to the facts of the present cases, we are of the view that blocks converted into polished slabs and tiles after undergoing the process indicated above certainly results in emergence of a new and distinct commodity. The original block does not remain the marble block, it becomes a slab or tile. In the circumstances, not only there is manufacture but also an activity which is something beyond manufacture and which brings a new product into existence and, therefore, on the facts of these cases, we are of the view that the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the activity undertakenbythe respondents-assessees did constitute manufacture or production in terms of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 547 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Lucky Agencies Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 October, 2017

While discussing the facts of the case of M/s Lucky Minmat Pvt Ltd. Vs CIT (supra), it has been pointed out by the authorized representative that the nature of the activity of the assessee as mentioned in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court of India is that "the assessee had business of mining of limestone and marble blocks and thereafter cutting and sizing the same before being sold in the market." As per the authorized representative, in the case of the appellant, it carried out further processing after "cutting" the rough kotah stone into tiles i.e. "edge-cutting"
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - A Bose - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Mysore Minerals Ltd, Bangalore on 8 September, 2017

9.15 In view of the above referred facts and also keeping in view the findings of assessing officer and submissions as made 18 I.T.A. No. 905 &2199 to 2201 /Ahd/2005 by the authorized representative and the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases as referred above including the cases of CIT vs Sesa Goa Ltd. 271 ITR 331 (SC) and CIT vs Mysore Minerals Ltd. 250 ITR 725 (Kar) (supra), I, come to the conclusion that the activity of the appellant is manufacturing activity. As a result, I hold that the findings of assessing officer is erroneous and not tenable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal as taken by the appellant are allowed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next